In recent news, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the Domino’s wage lawsuit back to the 9th Circuit.

The Case: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The Court: Supreme Court of United States

The Case No.: 21-1572

The Previous Ruling: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

Domino’s Pizza LLC employed the ingredient delivery drivers that filed the wage and hour lawsuit. The previous ruling in the case, Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona, was issued in December 2021 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The 9th Circuit found that the drivers qualify for a federal law carveout from arbitration agreements because they deliver out-of-state products from Domino’s centralized California depot to various franchise stores throughout California.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the California wage and hour lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza LLC solely to send the case back to the lower court. The ingredient delivery drivers filed suit seeking to clarify which workers are exempt from mandatory arbitration based on their engagement in interstate commerce. The drivers delivered out-of-state products from Domino’s centralized California depot to franchise stores across the state. The Ninth Circuit found that this qualified them for a federal law carveout from arbitration agreements. However, the U.S. Supreme Court justices’ decision vacated the December 2021 ruling suggesting the appeals court reconsider the case in light of the recent decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon.

The Dispute: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona case is falling amid a surge of litigation over transportation workers’ attempts to avoid mandatory arbitration of various employment disputes. Domino’s argued that the appeals court misinterpreted the Federal Arbitration Act and urged the high court to determine which class of transportation workers are covered by the exemption. Saxon did not offer a decision on the issue. In Saxon, the justices unanimously concluded that a former Southwest ramp supervisor qualified for the named exemption because she was involved in transporting goods across state or international borders, which fell inside the Act’s parameters. The finding allowed the ramp supervisor to pursue her overtime dispute in court rather than arbitration. However, in Saxon, the court specified that the exemption does not cover all transportation workers. Domino’s suggested the appeal is the ideal opportunity to settle the question resulting in a split among the Eleventh, Night, and Seventh Circuit Courts. In opposition, the drivers argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is in line with Saxon because the high court’s finding indicated the arbitration carveout applies when there is movement of goods in interstate commerce (even if the worker completing the transportation does not cross a state line themselves).

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.